Hello. Thanks for the warning about the image. I have marked the image to be "speedydeleted" due to the fact that I uploaded it from the english wikipedia nearly a year ago, being unable to find the original page there to know its license, and probably it falls under the "fair use" conditions. I apologize for the inconvenience. Er Komandante (messages) 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I have seen that most of the images in my gallery [1] are marked as "orphan", do you know the reason?. Thanks!

Thanks for tagging the image with a license tag again. There are hundreds of images without license tag - this is the reason not to view every image history. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But for something like an SVG file, esp. one which looks "in-house" and not swiped from a website, it doesn't take long to just check if the history was recently modified by an anon or a new user. --Fastfission 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

However, I asked the community about this superfluous addition. If the community says OK, because this addition is standard for german cities (Berlin excepted), it will be OK for me. --Juiced lemon 16:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

When have you asked the community? And please help me to find the rule that all categories should be in english. have searched but not found. Thanks -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I and a lot of German users prefer MÜNCHEN -- Rüdiger Wölk 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing images to the Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on the Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)

State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikipedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best use CommonsHelper

If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.

Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.

Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Please add a source, and all is OK. The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status. -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not the uploader. I just commented that no source can be given if the original painter is unknown. Source=author, for PD-old. Any intermediate sources are irrelevant. What you say boils down to: if the artist is unknown, however old or PD it may be, we wont have it here. TeunSpaans 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you tagged this image for deletion. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. It says right on the description field that the copyright has expired and there are no reproduction issues according to the National Archives of Canada. In future, please read that information and/or follow the link to the National Archives. Dowew 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I realize that last comment was a little angry. I see that you just calculated the math. All you need to know is that according to the National Archives of Canada this image has no copyright and is in the public domain. There are some images on wikipedia commons that are from the National Archives where the copyright is held by the National Archives and are allowed to be used for any purpose (a good example is Image:Trudeau-Turner-Campbell-Chretien-Clark.jpg ). When the National Archives says "Restrictions on Reproduction:Nil" it means the image can be used for any purpose. I do not know the background of that image of Shirley Temple, all I know is that the National Archives says it is Public Domain (I found this image after I saw it in the Canadian War Museum with a tag saying it was from the Archives). I know the math doesn't add up, but I think we can trust the Canadian Government about copyright. Thanks. Dowew 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

hello there, you had a question once on the usage of local language over English in categories. I have started a discussion page on this topic, maybe you want to drop by and give your thoughts? Commons:Language for categories. sincerely Gryffindor 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When this picture is your own work add this as information. the best way to give all the needed informations is the Inforamtions Template:

A good file description provides complete information about the file, including legally required information such as its copyright status and source, as well as descriptive information about what it shows and how it was made. To assist you in creating such a description, there is a standardized template for images. As a side effect, this template is also rendered in a typographically sound way. It is therefore highly recommended to use the template. Just copy the code below, paste it into the “Summary”-field during upload and fill in the blanks:

Hi! I'm the author and uploader of this picture. It was taken by me, so I put the {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} template. I didn't know that this image could be deleted, so I re-upload it on Image:Mala Rodriguez1.jpg because I could not done it using the old name. I think the new upload is correct, but I'm not sure of it, can you check it? Thanks in advance. Steve-o 13:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no information, that it is your own work. Please add this information and it is ok. Best you use the Infomation tag and give uns all the needed informations:

Just copy the code below, paste it into the “Summary”-field during upload and fill in the blanks:

Hi, you slapped me with a boilerplate warning for Image:Precum.JPG earlier; when you nsd tagged the image. My participation in that image was reverting some censoring-vandal. However, the image sourcing is clearly in the page's history, before it was blanked out by anon vandalism. Can you please check the page history before tagging in future? This stops spurious boilerplate warnings to users. I hope you check page history before deleting nsd tagged images...--Nilfanion 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the last days I check hundreds of pictures without license tag. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this even more disconcerting now and reviewing your activity. I hope you don't actually press the delete button before checking the history ;)--Nilfanion 00:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rüdiger, are you using a bot-like application to tag? I have noticed that because of the huge sync lag the toolserver has, it is really hard to trust the information it spits out at the moment. The above upload was indeed tagged by me today, but the toolserver has not yet replicated up to that point... Siebrand 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

with this picture I was too fast, and I have tagged this picture beofre I see the license tag. So I reverted my edit. -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rüdiger, I am the author of this coat of arms. Sorry, I forgot to choose the licensing for the image. I've replace the former template with a share-alike one. Greetings. es:garygillmore --Garygillmore 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, on User:Orgullobot/Welcome log you are listed as a helper. Orgullobot hasn't been active for a while and SieBot has taken over the welcoming a few days ago. There is fresh output again. I thought you might be interested in that info. I do hope on your continued participation in checking newbie edits. Cheers! Siebrand 09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong?! This is an official photo of former U.S. Senator - work of U.S. federal government, taken from the congressional website. Nearly all portraits of U.S. Congresspersons (like in category: Senators of the United States) are taken from their sites provided by Congress (a legislative branch of the fed govt) on or congressional bioguide. This is absolulety legal!!! Darth Kalwejt 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Than you should add a license tag - and all is OK. -- Rüdiger Wölk 01:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This picture, as the others, have been used by the municipality to edit and print a book on our common history. They used several documents that I had lent to them, as did other people, and just mentioned : private collection Frédéric Fercot (or s.o., when it is the case). On this picture particularly, there is my own father, died in 1965. I understand the particular care to the copy-right, as to the " image rights " (I do not know the english expression), and the latter has to be protected as well. I do not think of breaking the rights of anybody else, nor want it, but it is impossible to me to know who has taken this picture, in 1949 (1944 for the other ones): a friend, another resistant, my father's wife ? However, whether there is any problem, do not hesitate to cancel it. Maybe will I be allowed to use the family archives if I (am able to) create a page or a website ? [I had writen that these pictures came from them, but it appears as not being enough for a license tag, doesn't it ?] Best regards, --FFCT 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

After upload there is no drop-down list. But you can add the information with a template. Tell me for the first picture the flickr link and I will add the information asa sample for the other picures. -- Rüdiger Wölk 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please change the messages to languages the user speaks, if they are not English, such as I did here. (also the welcome message.) thanks, pfctdayelise(说什么?) 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where can I see that a user not speak english? Framertin has no bable tags on his user page. -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You can look at what they write on image pages and also where their images are used. If they are only used in one wiki, probably that is their language. Framertin's images are only used in fr.wp and they wrote "oeuvre personnelle" on their images. You can guess this is French, or you can use translate.google.com to make sure it translates to something reasonable (something this is necessary to tell the difference between Spanish and Portguese, they look very similar). pfctdayelise(说什么?) 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

THIS PICTURE HAS 30 YEARS OR MORE, so This image is in the public domain because the copyright of this photograph, registered in Argentina, has expired. (At least 25 years have passed after the photograph was created and 20 years since it was first published, Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7 (4)).

Please read the inforamtion on the license tag: Warning: date and source of any publication prior to 20 year must be indicated so everybody can check it, and clear evidence that the image was taken more than 25 years ago must be given.

Advertencia: debe indicarse la fecha y fuente de una publicación anterior a 20 años de modo que pueda ser verificado por terceros, y darse clara evidencia de que la imagen fue tomada hace más de 25 años. On flickr is this image marked as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Taken on November 25, 2006. On no place is an information that this picture is from 1975! -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the tag for Image:BirjandShokatiyeSchool.jpg, as you rightly pointed to. I hope this is ok. Sorry for my late action, as I don't visit my page frequently. Aliparsa 12:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rüdiger, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This is my own work and I have now added the proper licensing information. Not sure why I had forgotten this. Would appreciate if you could now remove the deletion warning. Jnpet 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you tagged this image for not having its creator listed, but I did indeed note that it was credited to he:user:אלמוג and posted to that language's WP here. Let me know if you need any more information, Tewfik 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We need the informations here on commons. Please add a license tag and the informastions about source and other informations. thanks. -- Rüdiger Wölk 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I visit WP frequently but CC very rarely and so nearly missed the delete tag. Is there a simple way to add a tag in WP saying that a CC image may be deleted? GhostInTheMachine 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think, there is no tag that works in this way. But when you are not often online on CC you should change your preferences and set: E-mail me when a page I'm watching is changed. And your discussion page should be set to watched -- Rüdiger Wölk 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to provide the source of the image? The picture was on the Flirk, but Paata decided to take it off. However, I usually write him with email and I can forward the email, which grants me the permission to use the images freely on wikipedia. Sosomk 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

YES - we need the source. and you should add the source fast. Images without source can be deleted after 7 days. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can the image only used free on wikipedia - or used under a free license? -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way is, when the pictures are own work. Than you can add a license like {{PD-self}}. But this CD covers are not your own work, we need the permisson of the person who had made the covers. In which form have you got the permission? -- Rüdiger Wölk 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your message on User talk:Timwi. Next time, please post your messages on my talk page on English Wikipedia so that I will see it in time. This is why there is a redirect. — You said that you deleted Image:Wolfson College, Cambridge (2).jpg. I took this picture and it is a {{PD-self}}. If you can, please undelete it. — Timwi 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is undeleted. Many users like me use a script for taggig pictures without license. This is the reason that your discussion page here on commons was used. Redirect to the english wiki is not a good idea. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You have forgotten to explain your reasons for saying that it's "not a good idea". You will notice that I didn't see your message for months; that would certainly be a good enough reason to have the redirect. — I acknowledge that bot programmers may forget about the possibility of a redirect, especially if it's cross-wiki, but if you want me to notice your message, then the best way to ensure that is to follow the redirect. — Timwi 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your message on User talk:mandrake33. I found the image in creative commons. Write Domingo Cavallo and you can find the same image. Sorry for my english, but im not an english speaker. Bye. --Mandrake33 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a source for this picture. So I have added the no source tag. Where have you found this picture? Where can I see, that the license is OK? -- Rüdiger Wölk

Please, go to [[7]] and tell me if its all right. Thank You. --Mandrake33 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

nd is not good for commons. -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

whny you add the following license tag {{cc-by-nd-2.5}} to thge image you see the result. -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can read on the english wikipedia the original source is from http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/ . and I can't understand the informations on the page. Can you help to understand. -- Rüdiger Wölk 13:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant find any copyright information. So, can we do anything? --Mandrake33 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When there is no information, than it is under copyright. And we cant use it here. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rüdiger, I think you have deleted something you shouldn't have. The copyright release for the Maungatautari Trust's images was in the talk page of Category:Illustrations_from_the_Maungatautari_Ecological_Island_Trust but you seem to have deleted it. There is now no copyright release for all the pictures in the whole category. Please restore the release ASAP, or advise me urgently so that I can fix this. GrahamBould 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that I didn't provide copyright status for Image:Gudula.jpg. I sort of knew it, but I guess I didn't realize that you can't just crop something and upload it without a valid licensing tag. Once you pointed that out I couldn't think of anything that would be a valid tag. (I thought it might be public domain since the stained glass was old... but it was someone's picture of stained glass, I later figured.)

What I did was I found a depiction of Gudula that is in the public domain and I used that instead, and reuploaded it. Was that valid to do? I have full licensing information for the new image. Thanks for helping out. Alekjds 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanks you for your message [9]. This picture has a wrong name (typing mistake during import). The correct version has been imported. Could you also delete "Image:Test of licensing.JPG" that is an old test without any interest? Best regards M LA 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

done - and thank you for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You took away the bad name template. It had been previously uploaded under a bad name, but the other version was [10] befire under my request because it was copyright infringement. I uploaded it thinking it was attached to the CC-by-sa-2.5 license in the page 20minutos.es, but I further read and the image was not originally from the website. Thus, it was copyright infringement (to a local newspaper of Utah). So, please delete this image as well. Rock 'n Roll 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting one of my Madeiragoldhänchen photo's from Wikimedia, so that it no longer appears on the german "Madeiragoldhänchen" and english "Madeira Firecrest" articles. Thank you also for not sending me a message to warn me that you might do this.

I am relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia. I expect that I make mistakes, and I am no expert on Wikipedia etiquette, but I would appreciate being contacted before my work is deleted.

I took two photo's of the Madeira Firecrest in its native habitat. I uploaded them to Wikimedia and I thought that I chose the same Public Domain licence for both photo's. I have no idea why you questioned the copyright status of one of the photo's.

If I made a mistake, please be helpful and tell me what I did wrong. Alternatively, if I did grant the same licence for both photo's, why not delete my other one too?

I apologise for being blunt, but I hope you can understand why I am not happy. I do not have time to contribute a lot to Wikipedia, so when I do give my time to make a helpful contribution I am pretty annoyed at having it deleted.

Sorry for this, but you have got a warning message. See your talk page: User_talk:Motacilla. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion..

Should I restore these image for you? -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Rüdiger!

I did not receive a warning message from you: it was Oxam Hertog who kindly sent me one. Unfortunately it did not reach my talk page until nearly ten days after you tagged my image, and this was only a few hours before you deleted it. I looked at the description of my image but your tag had replaced whatever copyright I had written, so I could not work out if I had made a mistake or how to put it right.

before deleting the picture I checked, if you have got a warning message. and as I found such a message I have deleted the image. -- Rüdiger Wölk 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore my image. It should have the same copyright permission as my other image, "Regulus madeirensis & Camellia.jpg". If you do not think that Public Domain is a good enough copyright for these images, please advise me why this is.

I have taken a number of photo's that I would like to give to Wikimedia. However, before I do so I need to be sure that their copyright status will be accepted. Oxam Hertog tried to advise me but he directed me to the "Commons:Copyright tags" webpage. The information on that webpage baffled me, and I could not remember the mechanism of how I added the copyright that I had chosen. Please direct me to the right webpage for me to see the different copyright options. Also please advise me which options are best.

I think that there is no good reason not to name the categories with the language of the place, so please do not rename Genève as Geneva. Categories redirect works quite well. Regards, Yann 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome your opinion on some pix that User:Infrogmation uploaded, and which I tagged for deletion, and notified him on his talk page. His reply is on my talk page, but I feel some doubt as to his reply.

Hi. I noticed your message on User talk:Timwi. Next time, please post your messages on my talk page on English Wikipedia so that I will see it in time. This is why there is a redirect. — You said that you deleted Image:Wolfson College, Cambridge (2).jpg. I took this picture and it is a {{PD-self}}. If you can, please undelete it. — Timwi 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is undeleted. Many users like me use a script for taggig pictures without license. This is the reason that your discussion page here on commons was used. Redirect to the english wiki is not a good idea. -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You have forgotten to explain your reasons for saying that it's "not a good idea". You will notice that I didn't see your message for months; that would certainly be a good enough reason to have the redirect. — I acknowledge that bot programmers may forget about the possibility of a redirect, especially if it's cross-wiki, but if you want me to notice your message, then the best way to ensure that is to follow the redirect. — Timwi 12:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that I didn't provide copyright status for Image:Gudula.jpg. I sort of knew it, but I guess I didn't realize that you can't just crop something and upload it without a valid licensing tag. Once you pointed that out I couldn't think of anything that would be a valid tag. (I thought it might be public domain since the stained glass was old... but it was someone's picture of stained glass, I later figured.)

What I did was I found a depiction of Gudula that is in the public domain and I used that instead, and reuploaded it. Was that valid to do? I have full licensing information for the new image. Thanks for helping out. Alekjds 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanks you for your message [11]. This picture has a wrong name (typing mistake during import). The correct version has been imported. Could you also delete "Image:Test of licensing.JPG" that is an old test without any interest? Best regards M LA 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

done - and thank you for the information -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You took away the bad name template. It had been previously uploaded under a bad name, but the other version was [12] befire under my request because it was copyright infringement. I uploaded it thinking it was attached to the CC-by-sa-2.5 license in the page 20minutos.es, but I further read and the image was not originally from the website. Thus, it was copyright infringement (to a local newspaper of Utah). So, please delete this image as well. Rock 'n Roll 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting one of my Madeiragoldhänchen photo's from Wikimedia, so that it no longer appears on the german "Madeiragoldhänchen" and english "Madeira Firecrest" articles. Thank you also for not sending me a message to warn me that you might do this.

I am relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia. I expect that I make mistakes, and I am no expert on Wikipedia etiquette, but I would appreciate being contacted before my work is deleted.

I took two photo's of the Madeira Firecrest in its native habitat. I uploaded them to Wikimedia and I thought that I chose the same Public Domain licence for both photo's. I have no idea why you questioned the copyright status of one of the photo's.

If I made a mistake, please be helpful and tell me what I did wrong. Alternatively, if I did grant the same licence for both photo's, why not delete my other one too?

I apologise for being blunt, but I hope you can understand why I am not happy. I do not have time to contribute a lot to Wikipedia, so when I do give my time to make a helpful contribution I am pretty annoyed at having it deleted.

Sorry for this, but you have got a warning message. See your talk page: User_talk:Motacilla. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion..

Should I restore these image for you? -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Rüdiger!

I did not receive a warning message from you: it was Oxam Hertog who kindly sent me one. Unfortunately it did not reach my talk page until nearly ten days after you tagged my image, and this was only a few hours before you deleted it. I looked at the description of my image but your tag had replaced whatever copyright I had written, so I could not work out if I had made a mistake or how to put it right.

before deleting the picture I checked, if you have got a warning message. and as I found such a message I have deleted the image. -- Rüdiger Wölk 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please restore my image. It should have the same copyright permission as my other image, "Regulus madeirensis & Camellia.jpg". If you do not think that Public Domain is a good enough copyright for these images, please advise me why this is.

I have taken a number of photo's that I would like to give to Wikimedia. However, before I do so I need to be sure that their copyright status will be accepted. Oxam Hertog tried to advise me but he directed me to the "Commons:Copyright tags" webpage. The information on that webpage baffled me, and I could not remember the mechanism of how I added the copyright that I had chosen. Please direct me to the right webpage for me to see the different copyright options. Also please advise me which options are best.

I think that there is no good reason not to name the categories with the language of the place, so please do not rename Genève as Geneva. Categories redirect works quite well. Regards, Yann 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome your opinion on some pix that User:Infrogmation uploaded, and which I tagged for deletion, and notified him on his talk page. His reply is on my talk page, but I feel some doubt as to his reply.

Hi RW (may I?) - The Haggadah Cover has not been licensed as GFDL by the copyright owner, so I tagged BN to have it deleted. Just as simple as this. Too bad, it was an interesting piece. --Ub 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You have delete this image and I have only now logged into my commons account to find your message. Sorry for the delay and confusion. I am the owner of the image (I took the photo) and uploaded it along with several other images, but must have neglected to properly add appropriate copyright tag. Can you please undelete and I will correct. Thanks. --Deon Steyn 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Orgullobot, at least for now, won't be making any category moves to or from categories that contain the word "Geneva". I think you guys have taken this too far, and I don't really care who's right. You should work it out before using a bot to change the category. It's inefficient otherwise, if nothing else.--Orgullomoore 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me the status of one of the images I uploaded. You say that it does not state who created the work, but I stated clearly in the description "Photo by Pete Forsyth" (which is me.) I assume that there is a different way I'm supposed to report it, but I don't understand what that is. Can you help me understand? (If possible, please reply on my Wikipedia talk page.)

I noted that I took the picture and the date that I took it in the description in English as well as some information in Chinese. Note, I only log on to this account when I have pictures to upload. Communication to me on English Wikipedia is more effective. Ludahai 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was no license information. -- Rüdiger Wölk 07:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that the author of image is me (Roman zacharij). It is plainly clear speciefied in the line author. Hence your "threat" to delete it is groundless. Next time you should look more carefully at the image information before making conclusions. If not your repeated lack of professionality will be reported and administration status removed. As I see that you have done similiar mistakes before.

Hello Rüdiger Wölk; Solo hablo español, and very poor english, i'm sorry; i was found the image here: http://www.photoreportage.gr/photoDetail.asp?ID=5139&folderID=True according with the webpage, "The photographs are been disposed free of charge by the photographer for use and publication." (in greek language), but if it is used, requiered that the name of photographer must be reported. Ok, the problem is that the webpage send the photos in good quality by email, but they same not reported the photographer name there (in the space for the photographer name is not mentioned) Babel fish translation: "The photographs are been disposed free of charge by the photographer for use and publication. If the photograph it is published we request is reported the name of photographer." http://www.photoreportage.gr/terms.htm Page for register like member: http://www.photoreportage.gr/newUser.asp

Do you can help me? i'm not speak your language, English, and not Greek too; I try to do a good effort for will put the image correctly, if it is possible.

Hi Rüdiger Wölk. I write to you and all other users listed on the Welcome log helpers list, except for EugeneZelenko this Call to arms. The reason for it is that I have seen very little activity on the project by you. Because of this we have most probably failed to check the contributions of thousands of new users and have not been able to inform them of the practices on Wikimedia Commons in a timely fashion, causing more work for us and the contributor later in the process.

I would like to urge you to make a habit of checking at least 10 or so new user's contributions from the Commons:Welcome log each day you are active here. We welcome about 200 new users with contributions each day and we currently have 19 users on the helpers list. You can find links to some helpful scripts on the welcome log page, that are likely to make your life a lot easier. If there are no users to be checked that have been welcomed today, please attend to a previous log. Thank you for your renewed attention. Cheers! Siebrand 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that I found that picture on the website of the author, and ask him the permission with the contract I found on Commons ( I mailed it at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as I was requested to do it). He agreed, send me the contract back with a license chosen.

1.I uploaded the same picture under a second name (Rachida Dati =wrong pic, Rachida dati = good pic) by mystake. I added the tag {duplicate|Image:example.jpg} to the wrong pic because I could not find how to delete it right away. Is that how I must proceed ?

2. I could not find the license chose by the author on commons tag. This is Attribution 3.0 Unported. So I just wrote that down with the link to the license page in Commons. Is that sufficient ?

3. I paste the author authorization in the description page of my picture (this is this text that I mailed at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the way). I dont think this is how it must be done...

4. I have some info about the place and date of the caption, how can I write that down ? You can see what I did is not of the best lay-out.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hi Rudiger. Please try to not delete duplicates before confirming that they have been orphaned. If you delete images that are still used, User:CommonsDelinker will start to remove the red links everywhere within the 700+ Wikimedia wikis 10 minutes after deleting it. We have nice tools to make sure that images are orphanded, and if at first automatic replacements and a retry do not succeed, please try to manually replace before deleting. See here for three images you deleted before being orphaned. Tools: CommonsDupes. Cheers! Siebrand 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that, but I knew this tools and I have use it! -- Rüdiger Wölk 11:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Hi - I had provisionally uploaded this image, actually a scan of a booklet I have in my possession, but I had no information on the copyright limitation. I later found the copyright owner (JCCA in the US) and asked for permission; this was granted with too many limitations, not compatible with GFDL, so I tagged as bad - incorrectly, I admit, it should have been tagged for deletion. As simple as that, and I apologize for the late reply - It's some time I do not check my talk on Commons... --Ub 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On User:OsamaK/dupes we have a few thousand fresh duplicate pairs ready and waiting for tagging... Please help out if you can... Make sure to compare license and author information, and transfer if needed before tagging. Thanks! Siebrand 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as good as I can see, you were the one to remove this file. It is used, however, on our page stq:Haudsiede. You are right in mentioning that a remark about that failed on the description. I expected such remarks to appear automatically. Might something be wrong in case of stq:? We would be very thankfull if you could find out. Greetings, --Pyt 13:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:GiantPoolBalls.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons. I have noticed that the version you uploaded is a thumbnail, while a larger version is available. Please upload the full version of the image. Thank you,

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanztalk 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, will check the page. -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thuraya_01.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk 05:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

Dear Rüdiger Wölk/H 2. I am writing to you to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

Hello, My group and I have made a Wikipedia page about our school and today we saw that some people go online and start deleting our pictures, one of the people were you. So, if it isn't that hard, can you PLEASE explain the reason why you deleted the picture that we spend so much effort on? I hope you understand. We are Secondary students from Tashkent International School and this is our first Wikipedia page, so there were things that we had a lot of trouble on and one of these things were images and we would be really thankful if people wouldn't just delete them. Thanks and please explain the reason you did this. and answer us on our Tashkent International School page or to bnikita@tashschool.org

Sincerely, KANNN Thank you

You can read the reason on your User talk page "There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you." -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of these sculptures are located in countries that recognize “freedom of panorama” for sculptures, while others are not. Currently, U.S. copyright law does not recognize freedom of panorama for works of art, such as sculptures, and thus the copyright holder of a sculpture has the right to exclude others from publishing images of that sculpture, so long as it still enjoys copyright protection. While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights.

WMF strongly supports a change in U.S. copyright law that would extend freedom of panorama to artwork so that more people can experience beautiful and thought-provoking works of art that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy. However, WMF is a U.S.-based organization that must comply with U.S. laws as they presently exist, including U.S. copyright law, conflict of law principles, and the DMCA.

If you want to express your support for the extension of freedom of panorama to works of art (and you are a resident of the United States), you can write your U.S. senators and/or representative.

If you feel that this particular image does not infringe the alleged copyright holder’s rights, you can contest the takedown notice by submitting a “counter-notice” to us. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you submit a counter-notice, the alleged copyright holder can stop us from restoring the content by suing you. Please note that WMF will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter-notice, and that WMF is unable to provide you with legal advice.

If you choose to submit a counter-notice, you must send a letter to legal@wikimedia.org asking WMF to restore this image. The letter must comply with DMCA standards and must contain the following:

A link to where the content was before we took it down;

A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you believe the content was taken down mistakenly;

Your name, address, and phone number;

If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; or if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where I can be found”; and finally,

Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, WMF must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter-notice and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter-notice. We will restore this image within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days, provided that the alleged copyright holder does not give notice of suit to restrain re-posting of the material. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of these sculptures are located in countries that recognize “freedom of panorama” for sculptures, while others are not. Currently, U.S. copyright law does not recognize freedom of panorama for works of art, such as sculptures, and thus the copyright holder of a sculpture has the right to exclude others from publishing images of that sculpture, so long as it still enjoys copyright protection. While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights.

WMF strongly supports a change in U.S. copyright law that would extend freedom of panorama to artwork so that more people can experience beautiful and thought-provoking works of art that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy. However, WMF is a U.S.-based organization that must comply with U.S. laws as they presently exist, including U.S. copyright law, conflict of law principles, and the DMCA.

If you want to express your support for the extension of freedom of panorama to works of art (and you are a resident of the United States), you can write your U.S. senators and/or representative.

If you feel that this particular image does not infringe the alleged copyright holder’s rights, you can contest the takedown notice by submitting a “counter-notice” to us. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you submit a counter-notice, the alleged copyright holder can stop us from restoring the content by suing you. Please note that WMF will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter-notice, and that WMF is unable to provide you with legal advice.

If you choose to submit a counter-notice, you must send a letter to legal@wikimedia.org asking WMF to restore this image. The letter must comply with DMCA standards and must contain the following:

A link to where the content was before we took it down;

A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you believe the content was taken down mistakenly;

Your name, address, and phone number;

If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; or if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where I can be found”; and finally,

Your physical or electronic signature.

Pursuant to the DMCA, WMF must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter-notice and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter-notice. We will restore this image within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days, provided that the alleged copyright holder does not give notice of suit to restrain re-posting of the material. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)